We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

As it recently did with American Electric Power’s power purchase agreement (PPA), the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) has rejected Duke Energy’s PPA, saying it is unclear whether customers would benefit from the plan or end up paying to stabilize the market, according to The Hannah Report. In both cases, PUCO said the plans were not in the interest of the public. According to the report, “[t]he commission agrees . . . that the evidence of record reflects that the rider may result in a net cost to customers, with little offsetting benefit from the rider’s intended purpose as a hedge against market volatility.” The PUCO said it recognized that a reasonable price stabilization rider that “provides for a significant financial hedge that truly stabilizes rates” could have value for consumers. The commission recommended that any future PPA proposals should address “the financial needs of the generating plant; the larger need for the plant ‘in light of future reliability concerns, including supply diversity’; the plant’s compliance with current and pending environmental regulations; ‘and the impact that a closure of the generating plant would have on electric prices and the resulting effect on economic development within the state.”

Related topic hubs

Compare jurisdictions: Cartels

"I find the newsfeeds to be extremely beneficial as a means of keeping up with changes in the law. I've made a regular practice of sharing a number of the items with members of our HR staff. Please keep up the good work."